|
Poster:
|
jonc |
Date:
|
August 02, 2009 03:06:51pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy? |
A section in copyright.gov seems to indirectly confirm this:
ยง 202.2 Copyright noticeIt would depend on the statute in 1935, but "Copyright" and "Copr." are listed as common missing "necessary elements."
This post was modified by jonc on 2009-08-02 22:06:51
|
Poster:
|
Fact_Checker |
Date:
|
August 05, 2009 03:08:36am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: Invalid copyright notices / 1935 statute requirements |
Regarding "It would depend on the statute in 1935":
To see what the U.S. copyright law read for the past century, anyone can visit
http://law.copyrightdata.comUse the pull-down menu to select the date range that you wanted. Perhaps I'm sounding like a broken record by always bringing up the same site. However, the information being discussed is there.
In a post yesterday, I said it would be great to know where to find the foreign-country statutes for this period. However, for the American historic statute texts, they are in one place online.
|
Poster:
|
jonc |
Date:
|
August 05, 2009 06:17:39pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: Invalid copyright notices / 1935 statute requirements |
Thanks, that could be useful.
|
Poster:
|
Ganbachi |
Date:
|
August 03, 2009 03:26:15am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy? |
I have a tv show on dvd that just says "All Rights Reserved - 1996" with the name of the production company underneath. Would that be PD since it doesn't say copyright anywhere? If so, why would they make that mistake? It's not that difficult to put a copyright notice on your product!
|
Poster:
|
 Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
August 03, 2009 03:52:19am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy? |
The copyright notice requirement was taken away after 1989. Since then, a work is effectively protected as soon as it is created and after publication even with no notice or registration. But without a notice or registration it is hard to protect your copyright and prove claims.
Generally, For things released before 1 March 1989, the copyright symbol, the word "copyright" or abreviation are acceptible in notices. "(c)" isn't. "All rights reserved" is optional. The notice can be written as a sentence and it should be on one line or in close proximity to avoid confusion. It only becomes invalid if there is confusing information. For example the attached notice on "Glorifying The American Girl" is invalid because it contains too much information between the copyright date and the owning company, causing confusion. As the law sees it, a "reasonable person" would not be able to tell if this film's copyright was owned by "Monta Bell" "Long Island Studios" "Western Electric System" "Paramount Famous Lasky Corp" "Adolph Zuker" "The MPPDA" or "The National Board of Review".
Attachment: copy_notice_eg.jpg
|
Poster:
|
jonc |
Date:
|
August 03, 2009 06:45:49am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy? |
There are many films in this archive that fell into the public domain because the owner failed to provide a valid notice. "All rights reserved" would not have been valid in works prior to 1989. In 1996, no notice would be required. In fact, from March 1989, neither notice nor registration is required.
This post was modified by jonc on 2009-08-03 13:45:49
TVNews
OpenLibrary
